• urata@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    I work at a golf course and I’d rather be doing something meaningful like building homes so this post speaks to me directly.

    Unfortunately the big thing lately is we’ve been dropping a bunch of trees.

  • JackbyDev@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    Golf courses aren’t inherently bad, but I think just about every one out there is weirdly exclusive and definitely wastes water.

    Disc golf is a good example of a sport that doesn’t monopolize space. It’s built into existing trails. Generally speaking the public can’t walk on golf cart trails (I’m sure there are exceptions)

    • frezik@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      There are city-owned golf course around me that I presume aren’t that exclusive (I dunno, I don’t play). That said, they’re also implicated in draining all sorts of toxins into the local waterways.

      I think they are inherently bad. They waste water, their turf needs constant care that puts nasty stuff into the rest of the water supply, and the space can’t be used for anything else. It’s not merely a game, either; it’s the defacto way for rich people to network and talk about how they’re fucking the rest of us.

    • jj4211@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      Disc golf is just sticking a few goals into otherwise typical park. You are gently tossing a soft disc over maybe 60-90 meters so you don’t need to be extra careful to make the way clear.

      Golf by its nature demands huge amounts of space for few people to enjoy. Further the landscaping and irrigation demands on a golf course are immense. You can’t have too many things on a course or people walking around, because a pretty hard ball comes flying from 200 meters away.

      • Roopappy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Correction: The discs are not soft. They are hard and can be sharp-edged as well. Keeping throws away from walking and bike paths is super critical.

  • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    But that runs counter to my need as a developer to bulldoze the entire area, build mcmansions 6 inches apart from eachother and at the barest mimimum of code (and perhaps even lower with a $$friendly$$ inspector), and then plant like a grand total of 5 trees that wont survive the first year.

    Oh, and also pave everything over. Gotta pave everything over. No one wants green space! /s

    • MintyFresh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      When I was first committing to my no automobile lifestyle, one of the first things that struck me was the pavement. Fucking everywhere.

      Next time your about town , take a mental picture. Then subtract the parking lots. The huge road. Put the buildings closer together. Make a nice bikelane, something just wide enough to get a fire engine down. Plant some trees. Pretty nice right?

      Instead we have salted earth. It really is just rude to the earth. Fuck your car!

  • Sʏʟᴇɴᴄᴇ@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    Not sure how it works in the US but here in Oz (where water scarcity is always present in our collective psyche) golf courses are usually placed on flood plains where it would be dangerous/too expensive to build housing. In addition most allow people to walk through them and many even allow dog walkers so they have quite a lot of public amenity.

    I would still prefer if they were just designated as public parks rather than having huge swathes of grass that needed frequent watering, but they’re not nearly as bad as most make them out to be.

  • Krik@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    Why building something on it instead of converting it into a park? People love green stuff, you know.

    • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Why does it need to be a dedicated park? They’re not proposing getting rid of all the green stuff. Even better than having green stuff some distance away is living in the middle of the green stuff.

  • GoofSchmoofer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    The best part about this is that this will give blackrock more homes to purchase with cash to the rent out to people at ridiculous prices. /s

    Sorry, I’ve become way to cynical these days about virtually everything, I need to go touch grass.

  • AA5B@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    There isn’t any context on where this is, but:

    • there aren’t enough golf courses to really impact housing supply
    • parks and recreational facilities also serve a societal good assuming they’re accessible and serve the community as a whole
    • golf courses aren’t usually located along transit
  • otto@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    Keeping all of the trees while also building a 40,000 unit apartment building on the same lot is gonna be a bit of a trick. Unless the building is 30 stories high. That might be normal in New York, but that’s not something you’re gonna see very much outside of the city.

    I’m all for vertical city building, but keep in mind what is likely to happen in your local community.

    • Beacon@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      I’m pretty sure you’ve misunderstood the idea here in a couple of ways

      • otto@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        No, I get it. I was just trying to make a joke.

        Apparently, it wasn’t very funny.

        ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

    • erin (she/her)@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      What. Effective public transport and less car centric infrastructure is far and away better for those with mobility issues. Walkable areas does not mean the abolishment of cars, it means more effective use of space and transport. Try visiting Austria or the Netherlands. Getting around is far, FAR easier than any city in the US. I have mobility issues, and require a cane to get around if I’m standing for significant periods, and yet the easiest time I had getting around was the time I spent in Vienna after living in different parts of the US for my whole life.

        • erin (she/her)@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 months ago

          Bus. Tram. Subway. Train. And yes, I do drive if necessary. Walkable does not mean walking is mandatory, and a huge part of the push for a decrease in car only infrastructure is the increase in public transportation. The idea isn’t to remove the ability for cars to exist, but to make other forms of transportation accessible and possible, and make reliance on cars a thing of the past. I don’t know why you’ve got it so wrapped up in your head that cars are going to vanish and we will only be walking, as if there aren’t dozens of other forms of transportation accessible for those of us with disabilities. The time I’ve spent living in places with good public transportation is the most independence and self determination I’ve experienced. I’m not lying, you’re just disingenuous, stupid, or misinformed.

            • erin (she/her)@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              9 months ago

              I’m not hateful. The bus stop is never more than a short walk away. If you need a car to go 100 feet, then you shouldn’t be living alone. Do you think every disabled person is stupid? I’m not going to choose an apartment up 3 flights of stairs on the other end of the block from the bus stop. I’m going to use the ADA apartment on the ground floor that is a shorter walk to the bus stop than half the parking lot. If I need to get somewhere that I can’t access with public transportation without excessive walking, I’ll drive or get my fiancee to drive me. I’m sorry you think I’m hateful for sharing my own lived experience. That’s on you for lack of comprehension, not me.

              Edit: And again, I USE CARS. I will continue to use cars when necessary. An increase in walkable cities and good public transportation means the roads will be more free for those that need them! It’s just an all around win, even if you absolutely need a car for any form of transport for some odd reason (even those that require a wheelchair use public transport over cars in most cities that have good transportation, because the infrastructure is built with us in mind).

    • drkt@scribe.disroot.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      I have mobility issues and car infrastructure does nothing for me and in many cases makes my life harder.

      Nobody said you couldn’t build paths between places.

      Fuck you.